Drones Over Greenland Give Insight To Pollution's Effects On Melting

merbs writes Thank glaciologist Jason Box for the Arctic bird's-eye view of one of the most serene, alien landscapes on the planet. Box spends much of his time in Greenland, where he uses drones to measure 'dark snow'—snow that has accumulated soot and dust, thanks to human activity—which absorbs more sunlight and melts faster. Drone photography, then, may hold the key to understanding just how fast Greenland is melting.

Comments

Cult of the Church of Climatology

[Anonymous Coward]

The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh noes! The Jurassic DGW, Dinsaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs with their Airplanes, SUV, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that! And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.

Any time period the warmunists want to "prove" thre is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter - now they have the perfect example - the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW ( Disnosauric Global Warming ) that destroyed the Jurassic... Wait, no, it didn't, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!

Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.

Another Cult of the Church of Climatology propaganda piece with High Priest Al Goreleone's nod of approval.

Re:Cult of the Church of Climatology

[K. S. Kyosuke]

And you conveniently forgot to mention the 2% dimmer sun, the potential influence of different geography, the fact the Jurassic biodiversity was in fact much, much lower than the recent maximum until we started meddling with it, etc. etc.

Re:Cult of the Church of Climatology

[einsteinbutthole]

IGTT 9/10 for "warmunists"

Re:Cult of the Church of Climatology

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You'd give the "warmunists" an intravenous glucose tolerance test? On 9/10? A bit late for that, isn't it?

Re:Cult of the Church of Climatology

[Anonymous Coward]

And you conveniently forgot to mention the 2% dimmer sun, the potential influence of different geography, the fact the Jurassic

And you conveniently forgot to mention that at current solar output and with current geography, we are in one of the coldest periods in the planet's history. Even if we could get CO2 concentrations up to 2000 ppm, we likely wouldn't be warming the planet to anywhere near where it used to be. And it used to be fine even then.

Re:Cult of the Church of Climatology

[K. S. Kyosuke]

And you conveniently forgot to mention that at current solar output and with current geography, we are in one of the coldest periods in the planet's history.

Surely you don't mean it would beat the Proterozoic glaciations? Unfortunately, our species didn't develop during those really hot periods, and I'm not sure I'm adventurous enough to wish for seven billion people to find out how we'd cope with that, even just biologically, much less economically.

Even if we could get CO2 concentrations up to 2000 ppm, we likely wouldn't be warming the planet to anywhere near where it used to be

That may not be necessary, even halfway towards how hot it used to be would be bad enough. No need to have polar temperatures of twenty degrees again - mostly because there'd only be one pole for people to live on, and most of the natural resources we need is still around the equator where few people would venture. (I wonder if there'd still be katabatic winds in Antarctica. That could get really interesting with higher energy levels in the system...)

Re:Cult of the Church of Climatology

[Technician]

Or how much of the volcanic activity in the area is miss-labeled as human activity. Seriously, how much of this is volcamic ash?

Sensational story with the facts totally wrong conclusion is what I see. How much is volcanic? No EDX of the material on the snow was even considered. Is ir carbon from forest fires or silicon dioxode volcanic dust?

Re:Cult of the Church of Climatology

[Anonymous Coward]

. Even if we could get CO2 concentrations up to 2000 ppm, we likely wouldn't be warming the planet to anywhere near where it used to be. And it used to be fine even then.

A little more people around these days... Certainly, the planet would continue spinning and life would go on - but there are a quite a lot of people living in the coastal zones that'd be / used to be under water. Ready to kiss goodbye to most of the worlds big cities, all port infrastructure? The upheaval of moving, or the killing off of, a large proportion of the worlds population? Nifty use of Google Maps API to simulate sea level rise - have a look

Re:Cult of the Church of Climatology

[Eunuchswear]

Whenever someone posts "did they think of [fill in some random thing] eh?" you're seeing the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

fascinating...

[hydrodog]

Makes me wonder if we can try to control the damage by shielding the drainage areas. Covering the whole ice sheet with mylar is obviously planetary engineering, but on a smaller scale, can you cover the lakes and get them to re-freeze? The lake has a lower albedo even than dirty snow, presumably. If you could re-freeze the water before it percolates down through the glacier, what would that do to the whole process?

Re:fascinating...

[vikingpower]

No, we can't. Not for reasons of feasibility of engineering problems, but for political reasons. We'll stand by the sideline, the coming decades, and watch how the Greenland ice sheet begins melting, as the political in-fighting goes on, contributing another 6 meters to sea level rising.

Re:fascinating...

[Karmashock]

Six meters? We've had like a foot of sea level rise over the last 100 years. That is about 12 inches. And while that is faster then the sea level rising before this century... in real terms it isn't a huge difference. In the prior century we had something like 8 inches. So that is the 20th century for you... 4 extra inches of sea level rise.

Please rip off all your clothes, throw your hands in the air, run around in circles, and scream.

Seriously though... I take the issue seriously but it is not helped by being hysterial on the subject. We have a lot of time.

We have a lot of time to deal with this issue. Political groups are trying to make this out like we have to drop everything and beat them to death with money or the world will be doomed.

It won't be though. The world is big. Things don't change that fast.

Calm down and we can deal with this in a constructive manner. Flipping out covered in bath salts frothing at the mouth and running around in circles screaming doesn't lead to solutions. It leads to a fire hose followed by some time in the drunk tank.

The hysteria needs to stop. It isn't helpful. And yes, I'm being unflattering to the people making a production of this... they're being silly.

Re:fascinating...

[Layzej]

We've had like a foot of sea level rise over the last 100 years. That is about 12 inches.,,, In the prior century we had something like 8 inches.

Citation? We have possibly had 8 inches in the prior millennium - not the prior century. Average rate of 0.1–0.2 mm/yr over the last 3,000 years. 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year in the 1900s. 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year so far this century. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Re:fascinating...

[Karmashock]

In the last 20 thousand years we've seen about 120 meters of sea level rise. The rate of sea level rise was much faster in ages past and it largely stabilized about 3 or 4 thousand years ago.

It has however still been going up.

If we took the average over time just to get a basic grasp of how much things have moved over what kind of time scale...

20,000 years / 120 meters = 166.6 years per meter of sea level rise in the last 20,000 years.

Now again, that is not the average rate of sea level rise today. Today, it is mostly stable and ticks up a little bit but it is nothing like what it was before.

At our current rate of about 1 foot per 100 years, our sea level rise is about half the gross average sea level rise over the last 20,000 years. Only in the context of the last 3 thousand years is that rate unusual. However it isn't even an extreme departure.

This is a very big system we're talking about that operates on literally geologic time scales. What we have is a blip on that system and it isn't even that unusual.

Look, my stance since everyone wants to play the US vs THEM game is that I think we have time. I think we have some serious problems to deal with but they are very large and slow systems we are dealing with that do not need to rush to address.

Our technology is advancing rapidly and most of the current concerns are going to be naturally rendered irrelevant before they become an actual threat to our planetary biosphere.

Can coastal communities expect rising seas? Yep. Of about 1 foot per 100 years so far. If they can't handle that then move. That is a totally reasonable amount of fluctuation in sea levels. Humans have lived near the sea for time out of mind, Our noses are unlike any other primate species because it allows us to more comfortably submerge ourselves in water. There are ancient human settlements that have been found that appear to have been continuously inhabited for hundreds of thousands of years.

We know the sea. Stop whining about what are relatively tiny changes in sea level. A fucking foot? Come now. Any storm is going to bring in swells of several meters at least.

We have more pressing problems to deal with them to obsess over this issue endlessly.

Re:fascinating...

[Layzej]

we've seen about 120 meters of sea level rise

Not over 20,000 years. That ended 8000 years ago. It rose 120 meters over a period of 5000 years. That's about 8 feet/century on average. Over the last 8000 years sea level has been stable. Now again it is rising at an accelerated rate.

Any storm is going to bring in swells of several meters at least.

Yes. Add 3-6 feet to the several meter swells from "any storm" and you have reason to be concerned. Add it on top of a moderately impressive storm and you start to have very expensive problems. .

As far as the potential for flooding is concerned, every foot of sea level rise is equivalent to a substantial increase in storm intensity. Under the old Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Intensity Scale the step from category one to two, or the step from two to three, carried a three-foot increase in surge. By 2100 however, we are likely to see a permanent three-foot increase in sea level, and even six feet is not at all out of the question. That’s roughly equivalent to an increase of either one or two categories in hurricane intensity. - http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

Re:fascinating...

[Layzej]

If you are right that the average storm causes swells of several meters at least, then hurricane Sandy was only exceptional by a few feet. Those few feet caused over $60 billion in damage. Your suggestion that "if they can't handle that then move" may not be welcomed by New Yorkers. - http://www.livescience.com/407...

Re:fascinating...

[Karmashock]

1. If by stable, you mean seas have risen at a slower rate, then yes. Stable.

2. No, not 3 to 6 feet. One foot over 100 years. That is what has happened. Notice how all the ports in the world have been crippled by this unexpected rise in the seas?

Me neither.

As to hurricane categories... by this logic what would 120 meters be on your hurricane scale? You can't add the slow rise of seas due to slower processes to a hurricane rating.

Are portions of the coast going to become a greater risk for storms etc? Sure. Been happening for thousands of years. The only places really at risk are very low elevation, flat areas, with sandy erosion prone soil, and near areas prone to strong storm or tsunami zones. Those areas are well known and either have been dealing effectively with the problem for as long as they've been inhabited or are currently being evacuated.

To my knowledge, there is only one place is that is actually being evacuated... some islands in the south pacific that are mostly just eroding away more then anything else. The population is being shifted to other places slowly. Every other place on earth so far as I know... is dealing with it.

So... explain why I should freak out? Not why I should care. I do care. You need to justify me entering crisis mode, dedicating extreme levels of resources, disrupting all public and economic policy, and really treating the whole thing like a war.

Do you have enough for that? Do you have enough to justify me going to War?

Because if not. Calm down. Its being dealt with at a speed and resource level that is manageable. If you want extreme attention then you need to explain to me why I must move heaven and earth to respond to this issue. I do not see any justification for that intensity of action.

Justification for action? Yes. Justification for a war footing against climate change? No.

Re:fascinating...

[phantomfive]

Can coastal communities expect rising seas? Yep. Of about 1 foot per 100 years so far. If they can't handle that then move.

Worth mentioning that continental drift moves faster than that. Then there is this kind of thing. If you live on the edge of the ocean, the dynamic nature of the coastline is just something you have to deal with.

Re:fascinating...

[Karmashock]

The foot happens over a century. Not all at once or out of nowhere. You have plenty of time to prepare for such an issue by adding 1 foot to your sea walls.

As to old coastal cities not being viable forever without renovation?

Both New York and Venice can break out the tiniest violin in the world.

Deal with it. Those oceans are rising by another foot at least. If you're not going to fix your infrastructure to handle it then you can move now. Complaining to the UN isn't going to change that. It is happening.

Its done. It will happen. Prepare or do not prepare. Either are choices.

End of line.

Re:fascinating...

[Karmashock]

Exactly.

You live by the sea because it is beautiful, the weather is moderate, you have access to fresh sea food, etc etc etc.

There is however a price. Let us be adults and simply accept that without blaming the whole planet for what those happen to be...

If you live in the desert you are going to deal with the sun, the lack of water, the low humidity, probably the sudden cold nights... etc. Comes with the territory. Don't like it? - Leave.

Living next to the ocean comes with its own set of pros and cons. Deal with them like the Dutch, don't deal with them like the Maldives, or leave.

Re:fascinating...

[Layzej]

Deal with it. Those oceans are rising by another foot at least.

More if we don't mitigate. Adaptation is certainly required, but at some point we will need to divert our attention from mopping up the floors to address the leak.

Re:fascinating...

[Layzej]

You need to justify me entering crisis mode,

No I don't.

disrupting all public and economic policy... Do you have enough for that? Do you have enough to justify me going to War?

Alarmist much?

No, not 3 to 6 feet. One foot over 100 years. That is what has happened.

We are less concerned by what has happened than by what is going to happen. As you have admitted, the rate of increase is accelerating.

Re:fascinating...

[vikingpower]

You make it seem as if I were "running around in circles and screaming", i.e. as if I were hysterical. I am not. I am, however concerned about a point you completely ignore in your comments here, and that is the dynamics of ice sheet melting, of which we know not very much with certainty. It is very well possible that, when an ice sheet begins to melt, it reaches a "tipping point": a point where the whole process can not be reversed any more. You can do a simple experiment in your kitchen, in winter: take a well-pressed snowball, and put it on a warm boiling plate. Wait until half of it is gone, then quickly take it and throw it back into the snow, where it came from. If you are lucky, you'll end up with something close to 10% of the original volume; if you're not lucky, you'll end up with nothing.

Moreover, I am Dutch, and grew up there, though I live in another place now. I was born at about 5 meters below sea level; as a matter of fact, about 40% of the Netherlands' surface, about 60% of total economy activity and close to 70% of all real estate value are below sea-level. I have personally seen a dike with the water close to its summit, and water seeping in, by the enormous pressure, from under the dike. Anything in Greenland happening that might have increased ice sheet melting as a consequence a reason for concern ? Hell, yes.

Re:fascinating...

[Splab]

Screw New York, at least it was only parts of the city.

As it looks now, most of Miami and big parts of southern Florida will be permanently flooded, yet you guys are still building in the lower areas. Some estimates that a sandy sized storm hitting Florida in the right spot could have the global insurance industry collapsing over night.

Re:fascinating...

[Karmashock]

As to tipping points, since you're dutch... are you aware of the Dutch Tulip crash?

Do you think your ancestors were morons? Why did they sell whole ships for such things? Why did the market get bid up insanely?

Think about that mass hysteria. Your ancestors were very clever and educated. They were masters of trade, science, engineering, and art. And yet they collectively bought into a mass delusion that brought some of your wealthier tycoons to their knees when the market collapsed.

Do you think you are immune from a similar syndrome? None of us are, friend. The madness swims behind our eyes and the only defense is to see it like fairies just at the periphery of your vision. Be aware of your madness. Know it is there so it can't take hold.

The point is, be aware of problems or opportunities. But do not buy into mass hysteria. That way lies madness and ruin. That we ALL learn from studying the histories of our own peoples. My ancestors were no wiser then yours. They likewise were overcome at times with their own madness.

As to the great engineering achievement of your people. The great dikes of Holland... If I am not mistaken, you raise them on a regular basis, do you not? Would your people be unable to raise them by 12 inches over 100 years? If you can manage that... and I think you can... you're likely fine.

As to tipping points... Again, you're presuming an ability to see the future. Ask your ancestors if they were able to do that? Mine never were able to do that. My family used to be commodities traders in the Chicago commodities exchange. Before the great crash. The market was shattered after that. My family lost everything that and so we left Chicago to start a new life in California. We built successful businesses from nothing. We've done that many times. Success and failure. We do our best to anticipate the future but none of us know what it will bring.

And that includes the climate scientists. You are aware that their models are unable to predict CURRENT or PAST climate conditions given known climate data... right? The japanese gave them a super computer to validate their models. Their models were unable to model PAST or CURRENT climate conditions given KNOWN climate data. They couldn't do it.

And as such, I don't believe their models can predict future climate conditions. It would be foolish to believe otherwise knowing that they cannot simulate current or even past climate conditions with those models.

It will be okay. Take a deep breath. These are big systems. Whomever is correct, we have time.

Re:fascinating...

[Karmashock]

Failure to justify crisis mode is failure to justify crisis mode.

Crisis mode was not justified so crisis mode is not approved.

Thank you, come again.

Re:fascinating...

[Karmashock]

As to it being more then that if we don't mitigate... you don't know that. And you don't know if your mitigations will have any impact on the rise at all.

Consider this for all your hysteria... what if it is already too late? What if we've already pulled the trigger and the bullet is just sliding down the barrel into our brains?

See the problem with this sort of nonsense?

What we know is 1 foot over 100 years. That is what we know. The rest is crystal ball gazing and people eating bath salts.

Re:fascinating...

[vikingpower]

You are wrong, as to raising dikes regularly. For two reasons:

1) you can't raise a dike indefinitely, for the simple reason that a dike's foundations sit on very humid soil, basically a sort of muck. Raising it above a certain height makes the dike collapse. Ergo: significantly raising a dike means rebuilding it, on broader / wider foundations. That costs a hell of a lot of money, especially in areas where, historically, houses were built against the dike: you need to buy out the owners, destroy the houses etc. etc. The Dutch built a nationwide infrastructure of dikes and artefacts: the "Delta Works". Work began in the 60s, with the state borrowing massive amounts of money, of which the last euro was paid back only a few years ago. Doing that again requires that considerable financial risk be taken, as this time the effort would be even more humongous.

2) you can't raise an artefact, like one of the great movable weirs the Netherlands have in the various sea-arms and estuaries, at all, for simple engineering reasons.

I see where you are going, with your post. Without quoting or citing references, you claim that climate models are all crap. You are simply a denier of climate change who poses as a clever guy. Too bad I wasted my time and keyboard strokes on you.

Re:fascinating...

[Karmashock]

Increasing the height of the dike of course involves making it wider. I didn't think I needed to be that precise?

Do I have to issue engineering specifications with diagrams or can you connect the obvious dots.

There is a ratio between the height of the dike and the width of the dike. Raise it up so much and you have to make it so much wider.

As to needing to completely rebuild it every time it has to be made more massive... that seems unlikely but I'm not a dike engineer. I'll deferr to them on that matter.

Regardless, the waters are going up. So deal with it or grow gills.

As to where I am going and what I am... what could I possibly cite that you'd accept? Tell me and I'll provide it.

We can stand one before the other with the double edged sword of truth pressed against our hearts. Challenge me on this if you like. But I'll accept no challenge unless you hold the blade to your flesh as well as pressing it to mine.

If you presume to question me without putting your own convictions in jeopardy you will find no satisfaction from me.

Re:fascinating...

[Layzej]

No idea what you are talking about. Most people are only interested in reasonable and efficient mitigation and adaptation. Certainly relocating coastal cities as you have suggested is not reasonable adaptation. Some mitigation is warranted.

Re:fascinating...

[Layzej]

What we know is...

What we know is in the scientific literature. You may suppose that science is magic, but it's not. It is our best tool for intelligent decision making.

Re:fascinating...

[Karmashock]

Debate is over then. No more needs to be said about global warming ever again.

You completely answered all questions and resolved all questions.

Good job. /s

Re:fascinating...

[Karmashock]

well... you're going to get sea level rises.

Listen. It is going to happen. And after that happens, you're going to grow old... and you're going to die.

I know... and another thing... santa clause isn't real.

Point?

The sea walls are going to have to be able to take an extra foot of sea level rise over the next 100 years. And your dad bought you that bike. Give him a hug, he loves you a lot. :-)

Re:fascinating...

[Layzej]

Beats makin' shit up.

Propaganda

[Crashmarik]

Gotta say I really enjoyed the video of a drone crashing into an Ice Melt. Good theater that and having your own drone crash lends a certain level of sincerity to the whole thing. I mean it wasn't as if they were trying to do serious science or even go so far as to place the footage into proper context.

I am sure sooner or later the Green Movement will find it's Leni Riefenstahl, and it will be ok because they are good people that just want whats best for all the people who can't understand.
 

Re:Propaganda

[itzly]

Looks like they just missed the netting they had set up to catch the plane. You seem to be the only one making a big deal out of it.

Re:Propaganda

[Crashmarik]

I also make a big deal of things like Al Gore stating Hurricanes are caused by global warming, and animal rights groups that only seem to care about cute animals and nothing about people.

Re:Propaganda

[itzly]

You would be smart to ignore most of what Al Gore says, or at least verify it with real scientists. And I'm not sure what cute animals have to do with the topic.

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

But where are the "real" scientists denouncing Al Gore and his bullshit? Kind of like the Muslims they say "we arn't terrorists" but they never speak out about the terrorists.

Re:Propaganda

[scsirob]

Interesting observation that black snow is 'thanks to human activity', so near to active volcanoes spewing dust, rocks, lava etc. But no, must be us humans.

Re:Propaganda

[itzly]

If you read the words of the actual scientists, rather than just the journalist headlines, you'll get a more balanced view. The whole point of the black snow project is to figure out how much albedo change there is, and what the different contributions from various causes are. Where is your evidence that volcanic activity plays a major role ? And which active volcano is actually capable of spewing rocks and lava anywhere near Greenland ?

Re:Propaganda

[Crashmarik]

If you read the words of the actual scientists, rather than just the journalist headlines, you'll get a more balanced view. The whole point of the black snow project is to figure out how much albedo change there is, and what the different contributions from various causes are.

Where is your evidence that volcanic activity plays a major role ? And which active volcano is actually capable of spewing rocks and lava anywhere near Greenland ?

That's fascinating
Because oddly enough Greenland's albedo is pretty well measured by satellite

http://www.meltfactor.org/blog...

Re:Propaganda

[Crashmarik]

Are there any real scientists left in climatology ? All I see are policy advocates these days.

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any real scientists left in climatology ? All I see are slashdot editors/submitters these days.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Propaganda

[Layzej]

Interesting observation that black snow is 'thanks to human activity',

There are several potential explanations for what’s going on here. The most likely is that some combination of increasingly infrequent summer snowstorms, wind-blown dust, microbial activity, and forest fire soot led to this year’s exceptionally dark ice. A more ominous possibility is that what we’re seeing is the start of a cascading feedback loop tied to global warming.

This year, Greenland’s ice sheet was the darkest Box (or anyone else) has ever measured. Box gives the stunning stats: 'In 2014 the ice sheet is precisely 5.6 percent darker, producing an additional absorption of energy equivalent with roughly twice the US annual electricity consumption.' Perhaps coincidentally, 2014 will also be the year with the highest number of forest fires ever measured in Arctic.

Box’s findings are in line with recent research that shows the Arctic is in the midst of dramatic change.

A recent study has found that, as the Arctic warms, forests there are turning to flame at rates unprecedented in the last 10,000 years. This year, those fires produced volumes of smoke and soot that Box says drifted over to Greenland.

In total, more than 3.3 million hectares burned in Canada’s Northwest Territories alone this year—nearly 9 times the long term average—resulting in a charred area bigger than the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts combined. That figure includes the massive Birch Creek Complex, which could end up being the biggest wildfire in modern Canadian history. In July, it spread a smoke plume all the way to Portugal. — http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...

Re:Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to love the warmist ability to blame any and everything on global warming.

Re:Propaganda

[khallow]

Where is your evidence that volcanic activity plays a major role ? And which active volcano is actually capable of spewing rocks and lava anywhere near Greenland ?

The Icelandic volcanoes are in a good position to cause this sort of thing. For example, a series of eruptions in mid 2010 covered a significant portion of Greenland in ash. Coincidentally (or not), "record melting" of Greenland's ice sheet was observed at the end of 2010 with the greatest "melt day anomalies" (as described in the link) observed in southern Greenland which was also the most affected by the volcanic ash released by the eruptions.

The current melting in Greenland follows a even larger eruption (up to perhaps double the size of the 2010 eruptions) this year (which is still ongoing more than two months later). There isn't as much ash generated from what I read, but you don't really need a lot of ash to change albedo of snow.

Re:Propaganda

[itzly]

Look at the link you posted to the 2010 eruption. On the graphic it shows that Greenland was mostly spared in the ash cloud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...

Re:Propaganda

[itzly]

Satellite measurements tell you nothing about the cause of the albedo changes.

Re:Propaganda

[Eunuchswear]

The fun thing about the "Global warming isn't happening because Al Gore is fat" argument is that it's the best argument the denialists can come up wth.

Re:Propaganda

[khallow]

And look at the two links I provided. The area that you see being covered by ash (which incidentally doesn't mean that the rest of Greenland didn't receive volcanic ash) also has a more pronounced melting than the parts that weren't so well covered.

Warmist drones

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the warmist drones told us the science was settled and we just needed to follow orders. Why do we need to know more? So, these are drones piloted by drones for the benefit of drones?

Brown snow.

[slackware 3.6]

I like to monitor the brown snow in the forest near my house. I have noticed that the deer and rabbit turds tend to collect more sunlight and cause the snow to melt around them. Porcupine turds tend to fall out of trees and usually embed themselves in the snow at a sufficient depth to prevent the sunlight from reaching them. Bird turds are generally whitish in color and do not attract sunlight and are therefore "turd neutral". Basically porcupines are good rabbits are bad and the leading cause of Turd Made Global Warming.If Exon or Bp will give me money I am sure I can prove rabbit turds are the leading cause of global warming not fossil fuels. In fact i am the leading Turd warming scientist in the universe.

Re:Brown snow.

[Anonymous Coward]

It just needs a catchy acronym like TUMGLOW.

You can thank me later, preferably with a few scantily clad nubile females, about $1 million in grant money to study them, and a small house in a scenic valley in the Alps.

Re:Brown snow.

[fustakrakich]

Just don't eat any...

"Human-Stained"

[Anonymous Coward]

Referring to humanity as if its some sort of blight or disease is pretty sick. If these people hate humans so much why don't they off themselves and prove they are behind their cause.

That would do more the earth than BS climate religion propaganda articles ever would.

zOMG!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

We broke teh fuckin' planet! We broke the fuckin planet!

:: runs around the room, flapping my arms like a faggot ::

Save us, Algore! Save us!

Ashes block sunlight

[lazy genes]

I tried to melt snow and ice by spreading ashes on it and it didn't work. The ashes blocked the sun from melting the ice and snow.

Drones vs. satellites

[American Patent Guy]

Why would anyone turn to a drone to collect that kind of data? Isn't it available in satellite images? Wouldn't that yield a wider, regular and more reliable source of data?

Oh, I see from the article ... this creates a "bridge" between the satellite data and his collected data ... which we didn't apparently need in the first place. Mr. Box has his calculations independent of his drone-collected data to reach his "alarming" conclusions.

FTA: Mr. Box is of the opinion that "if humans release a fraction of Arctic methane “we’re fucked”". Wow: that sounds like persuasive "science" to me...

Please, folks: can we have some true science here, and not some reporting of someone's hobby as science?

Re:Drones vs. satellites

[BrianMarshall]

Why would anyone turn to a drone to collect that kind of data?

So he can have a drone, of course.

Re:Drones vs. satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

It's long been "GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE STFU"

It's hard to expect more from the settled science folk.

Re:Drones vs. satellites

[itzly]

For some reason, climate change deniers are not interested in doing any scientific research. The denial is settled.

Re:Drones vs. satellites

[American Patent Guy]

I was wondering when you'd make your over-generalization here, Itzly. Don't forget to report what you see in your tarot cards here as scientific research too: I'd love to make a comment on that as well.

Re:Drones vs. satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such thing as climate change deniers...

We're called realists and we're very much aware that the climate is changing and has been changing since this planet first formed. Unlike alarmists, like yourself, who believe the words of bogus reports written by politicians and are convinced that the climate is not supposed to change.

I bet you even believe that the world is 5000 years old and that we used to ride on the backs of dinosaurs?

Slashdot Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Another Climate Change (TM) article from Slashdot? Wow, you'd almost think Dice owned some sort of Green concern or was owned by Al Gore or something. Give it a rest.

I can't believe what icy

[fustakrakich]

FTA:

..soars over browned ice for as far as the ice can see...

Re: That's what the science shows

[Layzej]

That's what the science shows: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Re: That's what the science shows

[khallow]

I like how a "detectable warming effect" as described by the actual research morphs into "dramatic climate change" and a few unsubstantiated superlatives. I guess the science really does show something supporting the grand parent post.

Climate Science finally coming down to Earth

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Pure CO2 causation, the forced feedback in climate models and the machinations on the data that attempt to leverage a 400% CO2 rise into an extremely-slight-yet-lost-in-noise rise or flatline (depending on how you rearrange the noise) average global temperature... it has been like a bad dream that does not end.

Will the world end in ***FIRE*** or ***ICE***? Or will the world fail to end at all, that would be really embarrassing. It's time to put the steep rise in people-generated pure-CO2 and the observed not steep at all global temperature curve in proper perspective. As in, pure-CO2 causation is a non-starter yet worthy of study --- but it's time to focus on other aspects for awhile. Without all that 'climate denier' noise too.

Let's just talk about actual particulates and albedo. Stratospheric sulfur aerosols reflect more sunlight. In the Arctic, nearby soot may be a larger forcing than CO2. One effect would cause net cooling at the surface and the other a net warming as near-perfect blackbody particles settle on ice crystals. The photograph of a melt water canal with concentrated black carbon particles lining the bottom of the pool begs the question, does this melt channel owe its very existence to the presence of the carbon, or was it caused by other factors? I guestimate that the area of black is about 1/10 the size of the surrounding melt pit... so we are definitely seeing 'grey snow' in the Arctic here.

It has taken five years for the failed 'Glory' satellite mission to be re-launched as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. It is my hope that OCO2 will help to answer these questions by showing where pollution plumes originate and how they move, so that we know where to take samples and what to look for.

Politics demands simplified models and pure-CO2 causation so they can tax everybody without pissing off the coal industry. F*ck politics. It is my view that pure-science demands a balanced approach that will reveal the true impact of coal, among other manmade and natural causes.

And the folks in California would really appreciate a green-tax refund for the 29% of their pollution that is actually from Asia.

Re: That's what the science shows

[Layzej]

Whether one Canadian territory losing an area bigger than the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts combined in one year can be described as 'dramatic' is a personal judgement, and not something that you would find in a scientific paper.

Re: That's what the science shows

[khallow]

Whether one Canadian territory losing an area bigger than the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts combined in one year can be described as 'dramatic' is a personal judgement

You do realize that Canadian territories are big? And doubling the average acreage of wildfires by 2100 is a pretty insignificant trend.

Re: That's what the science shows

[Layzej]

Maybe. The effect it is having on the Arctic climate - maybe not.

Re: That's what the science shows

[khallow]

"Maybe"? Sounds like we're not talking science any more, but rather personal opinion.

Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how all of those who stand on the side of AGW deliberately ignore certain factors that are greatly contributing to the depletion of the ice.

Such as subglacial volcanoes:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/131118-antarctica-volcano-earthquakes-erupt-sea-level-rise-science/

And the little fact that the ozone is nearly depleted in that region for reasons unknown:

https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/arctic/ozonehole.htm

Re: That's what the science shows

[Layzej]

Errrrr.... yeah. 'Dramatic' is not quantifiable and will not be found in the literature. So what? Whose opinion would you want anyway if not a professional?

Re: That's what the science shows

[khallow]

I would want evidence instead. Opinions are remarkably overvalued in climatology.

Re: That's what the science shows

[Layzej]

Then you are looking in the wrong place. This article is the appropriate place to include the opinions of the researchers. So what are you complaining about??? And what does this have to do with the GP post anyway? AC was upset that the dark snow was being pinned on global warming. I showed that this is supported by the science. None of your contributions have suggested otherwise.

Re: That's what the science shows

[khallow]

You should have written something else other than:

That's what the science shows

And now you write:

This article is the appropriate place to include the opinions of the researchers.

When one looks at your links, they see that your claims aren't supported. I already noted this such as quoting what the research actually said versus your exaggerated claims of what the research said.

I'm really tired of people who just assert things, take scientific research way out of context, and then claim it's science. Then when they called out, they claim that they're just expressing opinions. This is far from the first time this game has been played.

Sure, I'll agree with that last bit. You're expressing an opinion. But when that opinion isn't founded in reason or science, then so what? There's no point to paying any attention to it.

Re: That's what the science shows

[Layzej]

You should have written something else other than: That's what the science shows.

AC was upset that the increase in forest fires was being linked to global warming. The science shows that the increase in forest fires is linked to global warming. That's what the science shows.

Then you took us off on a tangent by getting upset that a researcher expressed his opinion in an interview. Many people find professional opinions valuable because they are backed by years of research. No idea why that would upset you or how that is related to what I wrote or what opinion you think I expressed that you are objecting to. This is getting tiresome.

Re: That's what the science shows

[khallow]

Well, at least you are making sounder claims than originally. That is progress.

Re: That's what the science shows

[Layzej]

No idea what claim you are objecting to. Everything I've said is sound.